Which is the more reliable AR? top cocker or SP-1? Thank you.
Printable View
Which is the more reliable AR? top cocker or SP-1? Thank you.
I don't believe the method of retracting the bolt carrier does anything at all to affect reliability.
I have to agree. The top-charging handle on the Armalite AR-15 and AR-10 were cumbersome. In 1959, ArmaLite sold its rights to the AR-10 and AR-15 to Colt due to financial difficulties, and limitations in terms of manpower and production capacity. Shortly after acquiring the rights, Colt made some modifications to the design. I believe that the reason why Colt redesigned the charging method was to make it more accessible and less cumbersome to use. It had nothing to do with reliability. Reliability lies more with the operating system (gas blowback, BCG, and buffer system). Additionally, proper maintenance and good ammo can almost assure good reliability from any weapon.
I keep hearing that Colt moved the charging handle on the AR-15 due to complaints from the Army about the charging handle heating up.
I think it's sort of interesting that none of the military users of the AR-10 appear to have had similar complaints about that rifle.
If Colt had kept the top charger, would we have flat tops today?
That's what I had always heard too, and that the primary reason for the carry handle was to protect the top mounted charging handle and it's utility as a way to carry the rifle was just a convenient side effect. When the charging handle was moved to it's current location, they simply kept the carry handle upper receiver design until coming up with the flattop decades later.
Odd thing though, looking at pics of some very old Armalite AR-10 prototypes in a book I have, the carry handle actually seems to have predated the top charging handle, suggesting that perhaps the original intent of the carry handle really was as a carry handle after all.
The handle may have had several sources. With the utterly straight stock, it was necessary to raise the sights or there would be no way for the firer to look thru' them. Coincidentally, the carrying handle was needed, since the magazine is at the center of balance. We usually hooked our thumb thru' the the handle and around the handguard ahead of the magwell.
That said, the handle helped make the older ARs nice to handle...I don't own any flattops. How do ya' carry one?
The 'heat' issue is what I've heard; did the finger reciprocate with the BCG? Presume the finger's travel slot remained open to debris?
Moon
If you look at the contemporaries of the AR-10, most of them had carry handles, so I suspect that the carry handle was intended to function as a carry handle all along - along with serving to protect the charging handle. I recall the carry handle being a selling point on the FAL, G3, &c.
(Finding images of the earliest AR-10 prototypes appears to confirm that the carry handle is, indeed, there to carry the rifle, as the charging handle was not located inside the carry handle like on the production models or the AR-15 prototypes. In fact, the carry handle predates the AR-10 having iron sights.)
The charging handle did not reciprocate on the AR-10 or the AR-15 prototypes.
IIRC, the the charging handle slot did seal the receiver against debris, but the earlier versions could get debris in the charging handle track.
As for a flattop, in the field, I usually carry it in my hands, using a sling.
An original ArmaLite promotional video on the AR-10 (the carry handle is specifically referred to as a, "carrying handle"):
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Lap8cmxJHTU
'Raven, good link; the handle was indeed a handle, combined with the sights. Stoner was thinking outside the box. Can't imagine any way that the charging finger track could be kept closed, which is likely another reason it was changed to the charging handle we now know.
How about the 'no oil, little or no cleaning' business? Tho' they did finally accept wiping down the BCG.
Moon
Whether 10,000 rounds or one round, I clean my weaponry after every firing session. Also. My 1980 WV DNR safe hunting instructor told us the SP-1 AR-15 is not recommended because of reliability issues. Therefore, I'm with top cocker as more reliable than SP-1, too. This from a whom a guy considers a stock M&P 15 Sport 2 as a D grade rifle, also.